Friday, 6 November 2015

The cultural enrichment of Sweden

“Sweden – long proud of its humanitarian reputation and for providing asylum to refugees – has applied to the European Commission to relocate some of the migrants it has received to other EU countries. Speaking on the programme is Ylva Johansson, Swedish Employment Minister.”

Ylva sounded ever so nice. She was concerned that Sweden couldn’t cope, short-term, with mass immigration. There just aren’t enough houses and resources to accommodate them. In the long term, however, she saw immigration as one hundred percent beneficial. (For the diversity and cultural enrichment of Sweden) She seemed convinced that Swedes agree with her. One hundred percent.

He stuck to asking her about whether her long term vision of the "100%" positives from mass immigration would eventually outweigh the short term difficulties over housing; whether there was any "push-back" in Sweden to the idea of mass immigration (as if he'd never looked into the matter or even heard of the surging Sweden Democrats); and whether she wanted to send a message to the UK government about helping out more with the migrant tide.

8 comments:

What this Minister fails to undestand is that if you accept the principle of unlimited and what I would call "problem-free" asylum then there is no upper limit to immigration. She is simply shunting the problem on to the rest of the EU without addressing the problem.

"Humanitarian". Box ticked.Vox pops of English-speaking 'migrants' expressing gratitude and love for the kind Swedes who will grant them a safe home and jobs. Box ticked and box ticked.Acting as if there might not be widespread objection because admitting others object might give permission for prejudice in Britain. Box ticked.Opening with a question asking about both short and long-term effects on Swedish society. Impartiality established.Deciding not to ask if there might not be any negative long-term effects because that might give permission for prejudice in Britain. Box ticked.

100% consistent and on message, and they will claim impartiality because Webb technically asked about long-term effects. It's the guest's opinion that there won't be any, and oddly no need to challenge it. Webb sounded bothered by the entire topic, really, the way he huffed and sniffed at certain points of the segment.